Oh yeah, start by reading one line of this thread FOR REAL than you will replie with something significant.
No one here is paid to reply ( maybe one certain skeptic ) and we are not talking doom and gloom.

Are you here to instill some kind of fear in us? You replied like some sort of satisfied laughing dude thinking you got checkmate on me...
Is this your real face?
You think this thread is a thing made of nothing ready to crumble every time you replie. What kind of huge ego is yours?
You come here without ANY evidence against the timewave and you think your words will make this thread to crash down?

Is this an interrogatory?

You are clearly a person that even when you DIDN'T provide ANY single little evidence that could make us think this thread is hoax, you STILL post
like you are getting checkmate on all of us, like the hundreds of people who contibuted this thread are only poor delusional people, that our posts
have no value, that this is hoax, the other thing is false....etc. etc. etc.

But when we answer WHY you drive the discussion away discussing our personality, discussing ONE single sentence and making it the center of
discussion.

You cannot give us any evidence that could make this " house of cards " to crumble. ANY!

So, checkmate is a word that I can tell to you.

Cecilofs is answering as best as he can and he is answering your obsessive questions ONCE AGAIN.

Once again we are discussing YOU instead of this thread.

This is so clear. Someone has sent this person to sit down 24 hours a day to belittle people on this website.

You belittled me everytime you had a chance. I'm fed up with your behavior.
I won't be influenced by some person that sits in front of a website on the other side of the globe.

NB: I created a thread for " timewave zero debunkers wanna try ". You DIDN'T replie once. Why? Because you are not able to find a way to debunk the
theory yet.

I regularly follow this thread but rarely post- earlier there was some sort of challenge to the validity of the Timewave as a FRACTAL- I can assure
you it IS -

the true essence of any fractal set mathematically is that it is the result of a SELF-SIMILAR RECURSIVE ALGORITHM that takes a function and
continuously applies the same function onto it's own output- TWZ does this by taking the waveform produced by the differences in the damped
oscillation shape of the King Wen Sequence of the I Ching and recursively applies classical additive wave mechanics on the output wave to the limit
of observation in scale- this results in a TRUE fractal

recently in another forum I posted : to me what gives the Timewave some credibility is the fact that it is based on recursivly applying the King
Wen sequence of the I Ching- and as Leibniz observed the I Ching is really the configuration space of a 6 bit register machine - a simple computer-
but the King Wen Sequence arranges the hexegrams as pairs of inversions of the bit sates represented by the broken/ unbroken lines- so this sequence
actually "programs" the 6 bit machine into two reflecting 3 bit machines- and recently one of Wolfram's research scientists proved for the first
time that a 3 bit machine [ a 3 element - 2 state machine] is universal - and is the SIMPLEST possible universal computer - since it has already been
proved that a 2 bit machine cannot be universal-

do you see where I am going? the King Wen Sequence actually represents the output of the simplest universal computation in a 3 bit machine with a
reflection of that machine stored as a kind of memory in another 3 bit machine- therefore considering the Church Turing Thesis the King Wen I Ching
Machine is actually an obvious candidate for THE Cosmic Algorithm itself- McKenna folded the sequence onto itself in such a way that could easily
represent something like the way the actual cosmic algorithm operates on itself- but so many things could be wrong and it is so hard to tell if you
are looking at the right data in the right context or seeing phantoms-

I don't think timewave tracks genetic pool changes. The graph goes billions of years in the past, when no genetic pool ever existed.
So, how would it track changes of something that didn't exist yet?

words of Mckenna:

AB: So then again I ask, uh, at this moment that we speak of, uh, 2012, what do you actually think will occur?

TM: Well, I've thought about this a good deal, and there are hard and soft scenarios, but I've noticed that what the Timewave seems most coherently
able to track is technology. Somehow technology is very important, it's the transformation of the human relationship to the world through tools. And
so what I'm thinking would fulfill this entire scenario without requiring God Almighty to put in an appearance is time travel. I think that we are
moving toward ... you know if you look at biology over huge scales of time ... hundreds of millions of years ... it is a kind of conquest of
dimensionality...

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Thanks for that SetAI - good to have someone with more math knowledge post.

Can you tell us the Fractal Dimension then so Stereo will shut up? Or if its even relevant?

sure- fractal dimensions are different than Euclidean dimensions in that they are not integers- fractal dimensionality measures how 'kinky' an n
dimensional structure is inside an n+1 dimensional space-

for example a 1 D line has a fractal dimension of 1- but if the line curves and zig-zags in the 2D plane it actually starts to fill in the plane like
using a crayon to fill in a 2D shape- if the line COMPLETELY fills in the 2D plane then it's fractal dimension approaches 2- but if it fills in HALF
of the 2D plane the fractal dimension is 1.5-

we do this with fractals because their recursive complexity when carried out indefinitely makes an N dimensional structure so kinky it virtually fills
in an N+1 dimensional space-

in the case of the Timewave- fractal dimensions are pretty irrelevent since the recursive fractal is NOT performed indefinetely - it is applied to a
finite period of time- a sun cycle- and is iterated in orders of magnitude based on 64 only inside the discrete boundary of the orders of magnitude
within observed Time: from gigayears to the Planck Time-

since this is only a few kinks to the 1 dimensional timewave- it's fractal dimension does not 'fill in' the 2D plane hardly at all- so the Timewave's
fractal dimension is low- like 1.00000000...0000001 - with infinite zeros- when you see the timewave plotted on a computer it is not a real line
because the line is drawn with 2D pixels- the line actually has NO width - so a line must have infinite kinks in order to have any meaningful fractal
dimension

Anyway, I saw the graph for September 20 to November 20 looked a lot like the graph representing June 10, 1Am to June 10 11:55 PM which I thought is
interesting. A graph that spans months the same as a graph that spans a day. Anyway, I tried my best to click on the point of the graph that my target
date was on for June 10(the target date dot disappeared because it went back in the past, so I just had to be as precise as possible to click right
where the target date was previously as per my memory), and got october 22, 1914, 21,26,19 (9:26:19 PM) and on that date apparently the 'First battle
of Ypres" occurred. Interesting stuff, but what happened on June 10 that is similar with that?

I have to say, I come into this thread every now and then without missing much and the quality of information regarding the Timewave theory is
dwindling ever so slowly over the many months this discussion has been going on.

It's gotten to a point where the regulars in this thread, in my opinion, seem to be cherry-picking resonating dates to match future and or
past dates, with whatever case is at hand.

Stereologist asked a legitimate question in my opinion, and regardless of the way in which he handles himself, he deserves an legitimate response. If
you don't have the answer, don't just label him a disinfo agent. Think about it, why would the government be paying someone to debunk what a couple
hundred people read on a slow-moving thread with no proven theory? Seems ridiculous when you take a step back and think about it.

I've been following this thread from the get-go and I've come to my conclusion a while back despite following this thread longer; the TWZ theory
does not hold water when it comes to proving what it actually says on the tin can. Without sounding rude or getting personal, I would remind whoever
this concerns that having a little bit of skepticism is healthy and keeps you on your toes.

It may be your opinion but the theory is in fact based on looking at past events to determine what is to be expected in the future.
The graph is made in such a way that we are now for real resonancing with 1914 and 1944 since the graphs pictures are identical.

We are not cherry-picking at all. We are explaining the real theory and what is based on, that is , history and technology and the conflict between
habit and novelty.

I admit anyway, earlier pages were the best one , compared to what happened here since February 2011.

Originally posted by FermiFluxStereologist asked a legitimate question in my opinion, and regardless of the way in which he handles
himself, he deserves an legitimate response.... I would remind whoever this concerns that having a little bit of skepticism is healthy and keeps you
on your toes.

He asked a legitimate question (in a very rude manner intended to insult and elicit an emotional response). He's now been answered TWICE and yet
people are still saying he hasn't. This is my issue with this situation. Either the responses aren't being read or they are deliberately being
ignored to deliberately detract from the quality of the thread. The motive behind that is unknown but the effect of it is very clear - derailing the
thread.

That's fair enough if you think we are cherry picking. Skepticism is indeed healthy. Now, are you going to post constantly to this thread calling us
liars and hoaxers and nit picking every little thing we say, using all sorts of logical fallacies to derail the thread (Like Stereo has done)? Are you
going to engage in healthy debate? Or are you just going to say "No its not for me" and walk away?

Possible connection? If this really is the start of a cyber war then it seems to make sense. I'm just highly skeptical that this is the
"real"/original anonymous declaring war on the system. Just doesn't seem in line with what they supposedly were about (i.e. random, funny, offensive
#).

The U.S. Government has recently declared that cyber attacks are an act of war and this whole Anonymous thing has been brewing for a while now. Lots
of large/important networks have been hacked recently, like PSN and Paypal. I can't for a second believe it was all "Anonymous". That's the absurd
thing about it all, because anyone can be anonymous so once again we find ourselves fighting against a phantom enemy who can never be defeated (and
have their corpse dumped in the ocean with no photos

).

One way or another I can't help but think this is all going to be used to justify restricting the internet, more highly monitoring people using it and
also to tighten the control of people in real life. i.e. Post anti-government sentiment on the internet and get arrested on suspicion of domestic
terrorism, potentially detained indefinately, possibly tortured and possibly killed if things get really extreme.

Again, this IMO is eerily close to Nazi Germany and the resonances have been pointed out many times.

McKenna's claim was that TIME is fractal and that the resonances occur on all different scales.

The plot is not fractal. That's the end of the story. The fractal dimension is 1.

So one of the claims made for the graph is false. That claim is there just to add a little mystique to this charade.

I think your english is really good, but I also think Stereo is playing down your difficulty so that he can use that to his advantage. i.e. If
you make a mistake then he can focus on that mistake as though it disproved the theory rather than just you made a mistake. He's cunning that way.

That's a false claim. I overlook all sorts of poor typing. I have to. I make typing mistakes too.

Given how the theory was created - i.e. that it started with a generic pattern of how things change over time

The graph is an arbitrary construct. It has an arbitrary shape. It has an arbitrary origin. It's form was manipulated by McKenna.

THAT IS WHY IT IS A THEORY IN DEVELOPMENT!

This is not a theory. It is not based on facts. Theories explain facts. You treat this plot as some sort of "holy scripture" and shoehorn events to
match the plot. No effort has been made to develop tests to see if the plot can be falsified. Has anyone even bothered to determine an independent
measure of novelty to test the plot?

Even though their question has already been answered and they are still saying the same thing...*shakes head*

You haven't answered questions. That's the issue isn't it. You ignore the questions and continue to spout nonsense such as the plot is fractal.

That is BS. We never said that. I think we can look at events in the world and decide if they are novel or not without linking it to TWZ.

Comparing it to the graph is to check the validity of TWZ. Novelty theory is one idea, TWZ is about trying to graph novelty across time.

No effort has been made here to define novelty or to come up with an independent statement of what are novel events or how to compare events for
greater or lesser novelty. That would be a requirement to test the graph.

You haven't said anything about what we've been talking about in terms of recent history compared to 1890s-1920s. Industrial Revolution,
depressions, World Wars, rise of tyrannical powers. Tell me, do you see these themes repeating in recent times?

You list a time period of 50 years and wonder about common themes with recent times?

1. No world wars in recent times
2. I asked about whether or not 1890 was a novel year. Any comments now?
3. No worldwide depression in recent times on the scale of the Great Depression

This means that there is CHANGE (novelty) happening in the world.

There is always change. The difference is that you are shoehorning and twisting events to match this plot. That's just weird.

I asked a simple question, "What is the fractal dimension of the plot?"

You can't answer. I say it is 1. You don't respond with anything other than the plot is fractal. Your evidence is the repeated nonsense spread
across the web.

You are clearly a person that even when you DIDN'T provide ANY single little evidence that could make us think this thread is hoax

There is zero evidence in this thread. All that has happened in 150+ pages is delusional shoehorning with little thought about the events. No one here
can tell if an event is novel or not without looking at the graph.

Can you tell me if 1890 was novel? When I asked about a list of dates early in this thread I was met with fear that I'd show that the claims were
ridiculous. People hushed up and refused to answer.

You cannot give us any evidence that could make this " house of cards " to crumble. ANY!

That's laughable. You have no evidence at all. You can't tell anyone anything about novelty without looking at the graph.

Cecilofs is answering as best as he can and he is answering your obsessive questions ONCE AGAIN.

No he didn't. He says he is unable to provide the fractal dimension of the plot. He claims that McKenna thought time was fractal. That however says
nothing about the plot.

Once again we are discussing YOU instead of this thread.

That is because you are unable to support this hoax. You and the others have refused to answer any questions or make any attempts to actually study
the plot.

Here are some questions:
1. Was 1890 a novel year?
2. What is the fractal dimension of the plot?

You belittled me everytime you had a chance. I'm fed up with your behavior.

Instead of attacking me why don't you answer the questions?

NB: I created a thread for " timewave zero debunkers wanna try ". You DIDN'T replie once. Why? Because you are not able to find a way to
debunk the theory yet.

I was not online. I have answered now. That thread is as dubious as this one.

the true essence of any fractal set mathematically is that it is the result of a SELF-SIMILAR RECURSIVE ALGORITHM that takes a function and
continuously applies the same function onto it's own output- TWZ does this by taking the waveform produced by the differences in the damped
oscillation shape of the King Wen Sequence of the I Ching and recursively applies classical additive wave mechanics on the output wave to the limit of
observation in scale- this results in a TRUE fractal

for example a 1 D line has a fractal dimension of 1- but if the line curves and zig-zags in the 2D plane it actually starts to fill in the
plane like using a crayon to fill in a 2D shape-

This is not correct. A line that curves or zig zags is not more space filling than a straight line.

we do this with fractals because their recursive complexity when carried out indefinitely makes an N dimensional structure so kinky it
virtually fills in an N+1 dimensional space-

The TWZ plot does not have "recursive complexity".

in the case of the Timewave- fractal dimensions are pretty irrelevent since the recursive fractal is NOT performed indefinetely

False. The TWZ does have a fractal dimension. It is 1.

so the Timewave's fractal dimension is low- like 1.00000000...0000001 - with infinite zeros

False. The TWZ has a fractal dimension of exactly 1. It's not low. Low is 0. It is not a "tweak" above 1. It is exactly 1.

when you see the timewave plotted on a computer it is not a real line because the line is drawn with 2D pixels- the line actually has NO width
- so a line must have infinite kinks in order to have any meaningful fractal dimension

The display of the graph is immaterial. The graph has a description which is distinct from its display.

I believe this simply agrees that TWZ has fractal dimension 1. It is not a fractal.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.